I was actually excited about adding a free feat in the Backgrounds, but I HATE how limited they made it! First off, not only did they limit Class/Background choice because of the restricted ASI abilities, but they gave no choice of feats! Honestly, explain to me why the Entertainer background has only the Musician Feat and NOT the Actor Feat as an option??
Why don't Soldier or Gladiator allow an additional Fighting Style Feat?
Ultimately, I couldn't just pick the skills + origin feat + score increases that I felt best suited my concept. Period.
I am curious as to what that concept is
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ultimately, I couldn't just pick the skills + origin feat + score increases that I felt best suited my concept. Period.
I am curious as to what that concept is
For what it's worth, I had hoped to take the Tough feat. I'm playing around with making a Wizard (Abjurer) down the road and wanted to see what was possible. Seeing that that choice would limit me to Farmer, I batted some fun ideas around in my head for what that origin story might be. It wasn't until I plugged it into the character builder that I remembered ability score increases were also restricted by background. (I'd forgotten Treantmonk's overview.)
Frustrated, I started looking around to the other backgrounds to see which ones can bump Intelligence (the same step I resented when the increases were with species). Nothing was jumping out. I think I settled on Criminal just to move on to other stuff--honestly, that would have been fine. Later, when it became clear that I'd like some more spells, I took another look at Sage, and I'll probably go with that.
I don't throw my concept (if you could call the amorphous description above a concept, lol) in my post because I'm not really looking for suggestions. My focus was on the negative experience of character creation. I just want what I want. That option isn't in the rules (so far), and that annoyed me. I think it was a misstep by the book's designers. Again, nothing against the backgrounds they've provided; I think they're handy and sensible options for all types of players. But I think choosing what you want as far as score increases, origin feats, and skill proficiencies needed to also be a part of the core mechanics. (And, as I've said, that wouldn't have taken up much real estate in the book.)
Ultimately, I couldn't just pick the skills + origin feat + score increases that I felt best suited my concept. Period.
I am curious as to what that concept is
For what it's worth, I had hoped to take the Tough feat. I'm playing around with making a Wizard (Abjurer) down the road and wanted to see what was possible. Seeing that that choice would limit me to Farmer, I batted some fun ideas around in my head for what that origin story might be. It wasn't until I plugged it into the character builder that I remembered ability score increases were also restricted by background. (I'd forgotten Treantmonk's overview.)
Frustrated, I started looking around to the other backgrounds to see which ones can bump Intelligence (the same step I resented when the increases were with species). Nothing was jumping out. I think I settled on Criminal just to move on to other stuff--honestly, that would have been fine. Later, when it became clear that I'd like some more spells, I took another look at Sage, and I'll probably go with that.
I don't throw my concept (if you could call the amorphous description above a concept, lol) in my post because I'm not really looking for suggestions. My focus was on the negative experience of character creation. I just want what I want. That option isn't in the rules (so far), and that annoyed me. I think it was a misstep by the book's designers. Again, nothing against the backgrounds they've provided; I think they're handy and sensible options for all types of players. But I think choosing what you want as far as score increases, origin feats, and skill proficiencies needed to also be a part of the core mechanics. (And, as I've said, that wouldn't have taken up much real estate in the book.)
I get your frustration, and I get wanting that high int as a wizard. But what you see as a restriction, I see as a trade off. You can’t always have everything you want when making a character. To me, a farmer wizard seems pretty cool. You boost wisdom a con, get tough, and you’ll be super durable. Sure, you’ll have a 15 int instead of a 16 or 17, but that really means only 1 point behind someone who takes sage in terms of spell attack bonus and save DC. In exchange, you get to be tougher and have some different skills from a usual wizard. (Plus probably a cool backstory.) And with the change to spells prepared, you won’t be behind there anymore. I know many people put a lot of stock in that 1point behind part, and I’m not trying to say they’re wrong to think that, if that’s the way they like to play, that’s great and they should. But to me, you’re not likely to notice that one point. I know, mathematically, it will come up like 5% of the time, but unless you keep a spreadsheet tracking your rolls, most people will not notice the change. And eventually, both of them can get to a 20 int where they won’t even be behind anymore (assuming the campaign goes on long enough, which I realize is a big ‘if.’)
So, again, it’s a trade off. How much is 1 point worth?
Ultimately, I couldn't just pick the skills + origin feat + score increases that I felt best suited my concept. Period.
I am curious as to what that concept is
For what it's worth, I had hoped to take the Tough feat. I'm playing around with making a Wizard (Abjurer) down the road and wanted to see what was possible. Seeing that that choice would limit me to Farmer, I batted some fun ideas around in my head for what that origin story might be. It wasn't until I plugged it into the character builder that I remembered ability score increases were also restricted by background. (I'd forgotten Treantmonk's overview.)
Frustrated, I started looking around to the other backgrounds to see which ones can bump Intelligence (the same step I resented when the increases were with species). Nothing was jumping out. I think I settled on Criminal just to move on to other stuff--honestly, that would have been fine. Later, when it became clear that I'd like some more spells, I took another look at Sage, and I'll probably go with that.
I don't throw my concept (if you could call the amorphous description above a concept, lol) in my post because I'm not really looking for suggestions. My focus was on the negative experience of character creation. I just want what I want. That option isn't in the rules (so far), and that annoyed me. I think it was a misstep by the book's designers. Again, nothing against the backgrounds they've provided; I think they're handy and sensible options for all types of players. But I think choosing what you want as far as score increases, origin feats, and skill proficiencies needed to also be a part of the core mechanics. (And, as I've said, that wouldn't have taken up much real estate in the book.)
I get your frustration, and I get wanting that high int as a wizard. But what you see as a restriction, I see as a trade off. You can’t always have everything you want when making a character. To me, a farmer wizard seems pretty cool. You boost wisdom a con, get tough, and you’ll be super durable. Sure, you’ll have a 15 int instead of a 16 or 17, but that really means only 1 point behind someone who takes sage in terms of spell attack bonus and save DC. In exchange, you get to be tougher and have some different skills from a usual wizard. (Plus probably a cool backstory.) And with the change to spells prepared, you won’t be behind there anymore. I know many people put a lot of stock in that 1point behind part, and I’m not trying to say they’re wrong to think that, if that’s the way they like to play, that’s great and they should. But to me, you’re not likely to notice that one point. I know, mathematically, it will come up like 5% of the time, but unless you keep a spreadsheet tracking your rolls, most people will not notice the change. And eventually, both of them can get to a 20 int where they won’t even be behind anymore (assuming the campaign goes on long enough, which I realize is a big ‘if.’)
So, again, it’s a trade off. How much is 1 point worth?
And again, we are back to the same pre-Tasha’s issue with ASI tied to race that WotC wanted to get away from. Want that Half-Orc wizard. Well, you will just have to settle for starting with a 15 INT. Now it’s a wizard with tough feat.
I could maybe live with the three ability score restrictions if they left the origin feat open to whatever you wanted.
I understand that it's logical to tie ability score increases and origin feats and skill proficiencies to backgrounds. It makes a ton of sense. But after being freed from racial/species pigeonholing (with Tasha's), now I'm back to... wizards are scribes, rogues are criminals, clerics are acolytes, etc.
I'm going to keep giving this an AMEN. It's just mind-boggling to me that the design team made a very big deal in the 2014 rules of de-coupling ASIs from species due to how that was pigeonholing certain species for certain classes. They wanted to allow people to be creative and wild and create the character they wanted...
...and then they tie in ASIs, in the form of origin feats to backgrounds. While this doesn't perpetuate the species "trap" in terms of builds, it means that classes are now to going understandably clump around certain backgrounds and their associated feats/ASI.
Sigh.
And don't even get me started on the new PHB deleting all the stuff about bonds, ideals, and flaws.
I prefer locking ability scores behind something. If they're always to your best stats, you might as well change the default array to 17, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8 and increase point buy numbers.
I prefer species (because dwarves should be hardier and elves more graceful in the way way that Vulcans and Wookies should just be stronger than humans) but having backgrounds enables you to build towards type while also having to work around ability scores that are not always 100% optimized.
Whilst I don't hate the new approach with having ASI's tied to backgrounds, I remember reading elsewhere someone's suggestions of having a Class be the point where ASI's are increased i.e. if you choose Fighter, you can have +1 to STR, DEX, CON or +2 to one Ability and +1 to another Ability. Understand that this isn't 100% perfect as and Eldritch Knight for example would want points on Intelligence, but I guess anyone using Standard Array would just put their 15 in Intelligence.
Just my two pennies. After all, whilst interesting character concepts are great, I don't think it's earth-shattering to the game to suggest to newbies and seasoned players "Hey, your Sorcerer is going to need Charisma as one of their best stats".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
I prefer locking ability scores behind something. If they're always to your best stats, you might as well change the default array to 17, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8 and increase point buy numbers.
I prefer species (because dwarves should be hardier and elves more graceful in the way way that Vulcans and Wookies should just be stronger than humans) but having backgrounds enables you to build towards type while also having to work around ability scores that are not always 100% optimized.
For the longest time I couldn't articulate why I didn't have a problem with ASIs moving to backgrounds instead of going completely free-form, but I think this is the closest to what I was thinking. Essentially, why have ASIs at all at that point? Just up the base numbers in the array/point buy, as you said. Having ASI at least a little bit of a fail-safe for rolled stats, though if you're going that route, you are already prepared to suboptimal characters, so tying them to either backgrounds or species is probably nbd.
I understand why they moved away from species, at least for the mental stats, but physical stat boosts on species still makes sense to me. That's probably because I see the stat boosts as a kind of "this species/background would be stronger/wiser than the average Joe". I don't think anyone would balk at the idea that the average orc can lift more than the average halfling, or that the average scribe would be more learned than the average farmer (hence the ASIs for races and backgrounds pre- and post-5.24, respectively). However, when it comes to someone's player character, you could certainly make the argument that they are already extraordinary and so the stat boosts from these things make less sense, and the NPC stat block could incorporate that idea instead.
I guess I just feel like if ASIs were free-form or dumped in favor of a boost to the standard array, you lose out on diversity in characters, as the default then becomes the optimized case. You'd have to want to make an unoptimized character. Backgrounds would literally become nothing more than a footnote on your character sheet. With ASIs tied to something that a player might want to choose for their character for role-play reasons, you now have an incentive to play an unoptimized character beyond simply wanting to play an unoptimized character. The only real problem I see with the current backgrounds is that some classes have a very clear optimized choice while others do not. I think they should have tried to give each class at least one optimized (or mostly optimized) choice, or none to any class (every class should find something wanting in their "best choice").
That said, the option to go custom should be there for the experienced who either want that optimized character for reasons, or can run with the role-play of a background despite the lack of impact on your character.
And again, we are back to the same pre-Tasha’s issue with ASI tied to race that WotC wanted to get away from
Mmmm, I wouldn't call it *exactly* the same issue...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's just mind-boggling to me that the design team made a very big deal in the 2014 rules of de-coupling ASIs from species due to how that was pigeonholing certain species for certain classes.
That was not the sole reason for decoupling ASIs from species. I wouldn't even say it was the primary reason
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
1. Its not pigeon holing to have some combinations be better mechanically for a given goal than others. Its what MAKES a choice an actual choice. If there are no consequences to making a giving selection, if every possible combination just results in the same answer, than there are NO choices...merely cosmetic skins...generic boredom. Which fine if you like it, but man that sounds boring. Yes, maybe it is mechanically worst to have a orc wizard, due to the lack of Int increase (again assuming Races get the ASI bonus) but instead you are hardy and stronger than most wizards which might be neat too. I think everyone obsessing that not every combination gets you the same result is exactly the direction they should have been leaning in to more. But then, I dont think people get the concept of pros and cons and actual impactful choices...lol.
The way I see it, even if you limit yourself to the backgrounds in the new PHB (which you absolutely don't have to, the book tells you you can use an old background and do whatever with your ASI and Origin Feat), 2024 characters are still better off than 2014 characters.
Everyone is guaranteed a feat at 1st level regardless of race, and there's no longer a massive disparity between the people that started as Variant Human with Crossbow Expert/Polearm Master and everyone else.
I get your frustration, and I get wanting that high int as a wizard. But what you see as a restriction, I see as a trade off. You can’t always have everything you want when making a character. To me, a farmer wizard seems pretty cool. You boost wisdom a con, get tough, and you’ll be super durable. Sure, you’ll have a 15 int instead of a 16 or 17, but that really means only 1 point behind someone who takes sage in terms of spell attack bonus and save DC. In exchange, you get to be tougher and have some different skills from a usual wizard. (Plus probably a cool backstory.) And with the change to spells prepared, you won’t be behind there anymore.
The psychology of all of this is really interesting to me, because all of that is true.
An ability score bonus that is merely 1 point smaller doesn't make much difference to me, truly. And maybe I wouldn't have reacted so negatively to this if they hadn't separated the ability score increases from species as an intermediary step in Tasha's. Cuz, hey, I had this blissful period of time where I could just make whatever sounded interesting--mixing class, species, backgrounds, ability scores, whatever.
The logic of your point does cut both ways, though. If the difference between a 15 and 17 intelligence is so small, why was it important that there be these trade-offs? Why is there this "cost" to try that out? In other words, what purpose do the trade-offs serve for the player experience?
My own preference? I see it as unnecessarily realistic. I see how it makes sense across a hypothetical fantasy population that, sure, maybe most farmers aren't going to be the most gifted wizards right out of the gate. Just like I was fine with, in general, dwarves being more resilient and elves being more lithe and dexterous. However, I don't play DnD to play an average character. It's fun playing a character who's not only special but stands out in creative ways.
I do know this: I would roleplay a 15 Int and a 17 Int differently (or would at least try to). And the stuff I came up with for my farmer-wizard was fun :)
I suspect it all comes down to the fact that there absolutely are ways to optimize character mechanics. I've sat at the tables where I had a PC for which I'd made the tradeoffs you talked about earlier for the sake of simply trying something out. And it wasn't fun seeing the people who optimized shine while I had a more ho-hum experience. That's much more a failure of not creating the characters together as a group, but I think it has influenced me.
Time and again, when trying to optimize, I often end up backing off on the weird rules loophole, but pursuing it helped me find something my brain likes to think about for the character's backstory, etc.
I get your frustration, and I get wanting that high int as a wizard. But what you see as a restriction, I see as a trade off. You can’t always have everything you want when making a character. To me, a farmer wizard seems pretty cool. You boost wisdom a con, get tough, and you’ll be super durable. Sure, you’ll have a 15 int instead of a 16 or 17, but that really means only 1 point behind someone who takes sage in terms of spell attack bonus and save DC. In exchange, you get to be tougher and have some different skills from a usual wizard. (Plus probably a cool backstory.) And with the change to spells prepared, you won’t be behind there anymore.
The logic of your point does cut both ways, though. If the difference between a 15 and 17 intelligence is so small, why was it important that there be these trade-offs? Why is there this "cost" to try that out? In other words, what purpose do the trade-offs serve for the player experience?
It’s the same purpose as any other character choice. Why can’t a sorcerer have a d12 hit point? Why can’t a fighter cast cure wounds? Everything has pluses and minuses.
And a cost isn’t quite the same as a trade. You’re getting the benefits of a different background that will broaden your abilities. For some people and characters, that’s worth the point, for others it isn’t.
If someone decides their character needs that 17 int at level 1, thats understandable, I get that. But also, that’s a choice they made, and that choice has the consequence of narrowing their options in terms of paths to get there.
I really didn’t like the new backgrounds at first myself, but the concept has grown on me. I’m not trying to say that like I’m more evolved or something, I just changed my mind about it. It can open up some very interesting character choices if people want it to.
And again, we are back to the same pre-Tasha’s issue with ASI tied to race that WotC wanted to get away from
Mmmm, I wouldn't call it *exactly* the same issue...
Well pretty dang close. So now instead of choosing a race that had the right ASI you’re picking the background that has the right ASI. Sure you get a choice of three ability scores to increase instead of two (3 for half elf that is no more) but now you’re looking for the right ASI range and feat you want and you can’t always have both (unlike when you could do Vhuman or Custom Lineage)
The game is full of choices and tradeoffs. That's why it's called a "game."
They (rightfully) reduced how race was gamified (and renamed it species), because it was bad to gamify race and ethnicity. But now they gamify culture and background. Worse, they do it after playtesting a version that didn't do that. It's lame. It's not like custom backgrounds would remove all the choices and tradeoffs from the game. You still pick a class, subclass, feats, scores, proficiencies, spells, fighting styles, masteries, etc. And you have class/subclass feature choices as you level up. And you can multiclass...
As it happens, using old backgrounds is a more flexible option. And the DMG will have new 2024 custom background rules. So, in all likelyhood, the "tradeoffs" of background selection will cease to be a problem at most tables. I expect they added the restrictions to the PHB backgrounds to reduce choice, by making character building more plug-and-play, for newer players. (And I guess it makes all the "you need stereotypes for good fantasy" people happier.) I don't think this was a good design (and lots of people in this thread agree), but I can understand why they did it.
The backgrounds are a shorthand for people who don't want to bother to create a custom version, which will almost certainly be available in the DMG, for advanced players. The vast majority of 5e players of today are newbs, and that number is going to increase. Ease of play trumps customization in the PHB, the only problem is we don't have the DMG, but that's only for a couple of months.
And again, we are back to the same pre-Tasha’s issue with ASI tied to race that WotC wanted to get away from
Mmmm, I wouldn't call it *exactly* the same issue...
Well pretty dang close. So now instead of choosing a race that had the right ASI you’re picking the background that has the right ASI. Sure you get a choice of three ability scores to increase instead of two (3 for half elf that is no more) but now you’re looking for the right ASI range and feat you want and you can’t always have both (unlike when you could do Vhuman or Custom Lineage)
The implications of tying ASIs to backgrounds (nurture) is very different from the implications of tying them to species (nature)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was actually excited about adding a free feat in the Backgrounds, but I HATE how limited they made it! First off, not only did they limit Class/Background choice because of the restricted ASI abilities, but they gave no choice of feats! Honestly, explain to me why the Entertainer background has only the Musician Feat and NOT the Actor Feat as an option??
Why don't Soldier or Gladiator allow an additional Fighting Style Feat?
I am curious as to what that concept is
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
For what it's worth, I had hoped to take the Tough feat. I'm playing around with making a Wizard (Abjurer) down the road and wanted to see what was possible. Seeing that that choice would limit me to Farmer, I batted some fun ideas around in my head for what that origin story might be. It wasn't until I plugged it into the character builder that I remembered ability score increases were also restricted by background. (I'd forgotten Treantmonk's overview.)
Frustrated, I started looking around to the other backgrounds to see which ones can bump Intelligence (the same step I resented when the increases were with species). Nothing was jumping out. I think I settled on Criminal just to move on to other stuff--honestly, that would have been fine. Later, when it became clear that I'd like some more spells, I took another look at Sage, and I'll probably go with that.
I don't throw my concept (if you could call the amorphous description above a concept, lol) in my post because I'm not really looking for suggestions. My focus was on the negative experience of character creation. I just want what I want. That option isn't in the rules (so far), and that annoyed me. I think it was a misstep by the book's designers. Again, nothing against the backgrounds they've provided; I think they're handy and sensible options for all types of players. But I think choosing what you want as far as score increases, origin feats, and skill proficiencies needed to also be a part of the core mechanics. (And, as I've said, that wouldn't have taken up much real estate in the book.)
I get your frustration, and I get wanting that high int as a wizard. But what you see as a restriction, I see as a trade off. You can’t always have everything you want when making a character.
To me, a farmer wizard seems pretty cool. You boost wisdom a con, get tough, and you’ll be super durable. Sure, you’ll have a 15 int instead of a 16 or 17, but that really means only 1 point behind someone who takes sage in terms of spell attack bonus and save DC. In exchange, you get to be tougher and have some different skills from a usual wizard. (Plus probably a cool backstory.) And with the change to spells prepared, you won’t be behind there anymore.
I know many people put a lot of stock in that 1point behind part, and I’m not trying to say they’re wrong to think that, if that’s the way they like to play, that’s great and they should.
But to me, you’re not likely to notice that one point. I know, mathematically, it will come up like 5% of the time, but unless you keep a spreadsheet tracking your rolls, most people will not notice the change. And eventually, both of them can get to a 20 int where they won’t even be behind anymore (assuming the campaign goes on long enough, which I realize is a big ‘if.’)
So, again, it’s a trade off. How much is 1 point worth?
Agreed, but I find the complete detriment to character development to be game breaking for me. I will skip over 2024 just like I skipped over 4th ed.
And again, we are back to the same pre-Tasha’s issue with ASI tied to race that WotC wanted to get away from. Want that Half-Orc wizard. Well, you will just have to settle for starting with a 15 INT. Now it’s a wizard with tough feat.
I could maybe live with the three ability score restrictions if they left the origin feat open to whatever you wanted.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I'm going to keep giving this an AMEN. It's just mind-boggling to me that the design team made a very big deal in the 2014 rules of de-coupling ASIs from species due to how that was pigeonholing certain species for certain classes. They wanted to allow people to be creative and wild and create the character they wanted...
...and then they tie in ASIs, in the form of origin feats to backgrounds. While this doesn't perpetuate the species "trap" in terms of builds, it means that classes are now to going understandably clump around certain backgrounds and their associated feats/ASI.
Sigh.
And don't even get me started on the new PHB deleting all the stuff about bonds, ideals, and flaws.
I prefer locking ability scores behind something. If they're always to your best stats, you might as well change the default array to 17, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8 and increase point buy numbers.
I prefer species (because dwarves should be hardier and elves more graceful in the way way that Vulcans and Wookies should just be stronger than humans) but having backgrounds enables you to build towards type while also having to work around ability scores that are not always 100% optimized.
Whilst I don't hate the new approach with having ASI's tied to backgrounds, I remember reading elsewhere someone's suggestions of having a Class be the point where ASI's are increased i.e. if you choose Fighter, you can have +1 to STR, DEX, CON or +2 to one Ability and +1 to another Ability. Understand that this isn't 100% perfect as and Eldritch Knight for example would want points on Intelligence, but I guess anyone using Standard Array would just put their 15 in Intelligence.
Just my two pennies. After all, whilst interesting character concepts are great, I don't think it's earth-shattering to the game to suggest to newbies and seasoned players "Hey, your Sorcerer is going to need Charisma as one of their best stats".
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
For the longest time I couldn't articulate why I didn't have a problem with ASIs moving to backgrounds instead of going completely free-form, but I think this is the closest to what I was thinking. Essentially, why have ASIs at all at that point? Just up the base numbers in the array/point buy, as you said. Having ASI at least a little bit of a fail-safe for rolled stats, though if you're going that route, you are already prepared to suboptimal characters, so tying them to either backgrounds or species is probably nbd.
I understand why they moved away from species, at least for the mental stats, but physical stat boosts on species still makes sense to me. That's probably because I see the stat boosts as a kind of "this species/background would be stronger/wiser than the average Joe". I don't think anyone would balk at the idea that the average orc can lift more than the average halfling, or that the average scribe would be more learned than the average farmer (hence the ASIs for races and backgrounds pre- and post-5.24, respectively). However, when it comes to someone's player character, you could certainly make the argument that they are already extraordinary and so the stat boosts from these things make less sense, and the NPC stat block could incorporate that idea instead.
I guess I just feel like if ASIs were free-form or dumped in favor of a boost to the standard array, you lose out on diversity in characters, as the default then becomes the optimized case. You'd have to want to make an unoptimized character. Backgrounds would literally become nothing more than a footnote on your character sheet. With ASIs tied to something that a player might want to choose for their character for role-play reasons, you now have an incentive to play an unoptimized character beyond simply wanting to play an unoptimized character. The only real problem I see with the current backgrounds is that some classes have a very clear optimized choice while others do not. I think they should have tried to give each class at least one optimized (or mostly optimized) choice, or none to any class (every class should find something wanting in their "best choice").
That said, the option to go custom should be there for the experienced who either want that optimized character for reasons, or can run with the role-play of a background despite the lack of impact on your character.
Mmmm, I wouldn't call it *exactly* the same issue...
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That was not the sole reason for decoupling ASIs from species. I wouldn't even say it was the primary reason
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
1. Its not pigeon holing to have some combinations be better mechanically for a given goal than others. Its what MAKES a choice an actual choice. If there are no consequences to making a giving selection, if every possible combination just results in the same answer, than there are NO choices...merely cosmetic skins...generic boredom. Which fine if you like it, but man that sounds boring. Yes, maybe it is mechanically worst to have a orc wizard, due to the lack of Int increase (again assuming Races get the ASI bonus) but instead you are hardy and stronger than most wizards which might be neat too. I think everyone obsessing that not every combination gets you the same result is exactly the direction they should have been leaning in to more. But then, I dont think people get the concept of pros and cons and actual impactful choices...lol.
The way I see it, even if you limit yourself to the backgrounds in the new PHB (which you absolutely don't have to, the book tells you you can use an old background and do whatever with your ASI and Origin Feat), 2024 characters are still better off than 2014 characters.
Everyone is guaranteed a feat at 1st level regardless of race, and there's no longer a massive disparity between the people that started as Variant Human with Crossbow Expert/Polearm Master and everyone else.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The psychology of all of this is really interesting to me, because all of that is true.
An ability score bonus that is merely 1 point smaller doesn't make much difference to me, truly. And maybe I wouldn't have reacted so negatively to this if they hadn't separated the ability score increases from species as an intermediary step in Tasha's. Cuz, hey, I had this blissful period of time where I could just make whatever sounded interesting--mixing class, species, backgrounds, ability scores, whatever.
The logic of your point does cut both ways, though. If the difference between a 15 and 17 intelligence is so small, why was it important that there be these trade-offs? Why is there this "cost" to try that out? In other words, what purpose do the trade-offs serve for the player experience?
My own preference? I see it as unnecessarily realistic. I see how it makes sense across a hypothetical fantasy population that, sure, maybe most farmers aren't going to be the most gifted wizards right out of the gate. Just like I was fine with, in general, dwarves being more resilient and elves being more lithe and dexterous. However, I don't play DnD to play an average character. It's fun playing a character who's not only special but stands out in creative ways.
I do know this: I would roleplay a 15 Int and a 17 Int differently (or would at least try to). And the stuff I came up with for my farmer-wizard was fun :)
I suspect it all comes down to the fact that there absolutely are ways to optimize character mechanics. I've sat at the tables where I had a PC for which I'd made the tradeoffs you talked about earlier for the sake of simply trying something out. And it wasn't fun seeing the people who optimized shine while I had a more ho-hum experience. That's much more a failure of not creating the characters together as a group, but I think it has influenced me.
Time and again, when trying to optimize, I often end up backing off on the weird rules loophole, but pursuing it helped me find something my brain likes to think about for the character's backstory, etc.
It’s the same purpose as any other character choice. Why can’t a sorcerer have a d12 hit point? Why can’t a fighter cast cure wounds? Everything has pluses and minuses.
And a cost isn’t quite the same as a trade. You’re getting the benefits of a different background that will broaden your abilities. For some people and characters, that’s worth the point, for others it isn’t.
If someone decides their character needs that 17 int at level 1, thats understandable, I get that. But also, that’s a choice they made, and that choice has the consequence of narrowing their options in terms of paths to get there.
I really didn’t like the new backgrounds at first myself, but the concept has grown on me. I’m not trying to say that like I’m more evolved or something, I just changed my mind about it. It can open up some very interesting character choices if people want it to.
Well pretty dang close. So now instead of choosing a race that had the right ASI you’re picking the background that has the right ASI. Sure you get a choice of three ability scores to increase instead of two (3 for half elf that is no more) but now you’re looking for the right ASI range and feat you want and you can’t always have both (unlike when you could do Vhuman or Custom Lineage)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The game is full of choices and tradeoffs. That's why it's called a "game."
They (rightfully) reduced how race was gamified (and renamed it species), because it was bad to gamify race and ethnicity. But now they gamify culture and background. Worse, they do it after playtesting a version that didn't do that. It's lame. It's not like custom backgrounds would remove all the choices and tradeoffs from the game. You still pick a class, subclass, feats, scores, proficiencies, spells, fighting styles, masteries, etc. And you have class/subclass feature choices as you level up. And you can multiclass...
As it happens, using old backgrounds is a more flexible option. And the DMG will have new 2024 custom background rules. So, in all likelyhood, the "tradeoffs" of background selection will cease to be a problem at most tables. I expect they added the restrictions to the PHB backgrounds to reduce choice, by making character building more plug-and-play, for newer players. (And I guess it makes all the "you need stereotypes for good fantasy" people happier.) I don't think this was a good design (and lots of people in this thread agree), but I can understand why they did it.
This!
The implications of tying ASIs to backgrounds (nurture) is very different from the implications of tying them to species (nature)
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)